what is the opposite of evolution?

That does not mean that evolution is directional, just that trends are observable over the period you are looking at. We might as well ask why are there still single-celled organisms, given how much cooler it is to be a giraffe than an amoeba.

But I am’t a biologist. 😉

More complex is not the same thing as “better”, for life forms or for man-made mechanisms.

As for “can you give me an example of something evolving into something simpler please”

If (for instance) you regard having legs as being more complex than not, then the change of primitive dogs to sea-lions, elephants to dugongs and whatever-it-was to whales provide some examples. Or lizards losing legs and becoming slow-worms.

If weak and slow animals are predated on more than faster ones, then a species will probably evolve to be stronger or faster.
Humans will change, but we won’t know the direction of the change. Taller and cleverer ain’t necessarily better. (Tall miners die more often. They get stuck and can’t work as well in tight spaces.Over a couple of hundred years of primitive mining, average height of miners dropped in mining areas)

Virus’ have evolved to become simpler

The miners thing is interesting. Did tall miners “die out” though, or did they leave the mining areas, stop being miners and get jobs as estate agents? And what sort of girl breeds with a miner when estate agent sperm is available? 😉

also there are more species of beetle in the world than pretty much any other apecies of animal, so are they the “pinicle” of evolution (if such a thing could exist).

I suggest yo go and read the Blindwatch Maker byt whats his face, I’ve not read it but its about random selection and evolution.

The human species is not the peak of evolution everything else isnt in place just to lead up to us.

in response to the original question the opposite of evolution is either evolution, or not possible because evolution does not have a direction.

complexity/simplicity is not comparable.

“Best suited to the conditions” are all that matters.
if a lizard can move through grass more effectivly (be that quicker, quieter, with less energy) without legs, then perhaps it has simplified as a slow worm, but its better at what it does.

estate agents are less welcome in Wales, more welcome in london, so move away, meaning the gene pool in wales comprises predominantly short arses?

or perhaps its fashion, ide go for a rugged miner over some poncy estate agent douchebag anyday 😉

the pinnical of evolution, if you ask me, is the cockroach.
not thought to have changed for millions of years, and thought to be the only animal capable of surviving a nuclear blast (or at least, best suited to the task)

the great white is considered to have been unchanged for millions of years too, the ultimate predator, but not sure how it would fair against modern technology.
if humans saw fit to wipe them out it could be done,
trying to make cockroaches extinct? not a chance.

I am attempting to make cockroach society weak and vulnerable by giving them so many resources to squander that they become socialist and develop a weaker gene-pool infested with scrounging ne’er-do-wells.
That’s what I tell my wife about the state of the kitchen anyhoo.

😉

Read “the marching morons” a SF short story by Cyril Kornbluth if you want to be really depressed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Marching_Morons

you’ve all assumed evolution to refer to a physical change of genus resulting in a new species. And since evolution of mankind is unlikely to result in a new species – the OP is referring to social evolution.

the way i interpret evolution in this context is to mean “change”. and since nothing in life is constant except for “change”. it is impossible for an opposite of evolution to exist.

We’ve created a society where “survival of the fittest” no longer occurs

if you look at the wealth divide across the world, the exploitation of third world countries, accessibility to medicines, health care, education and natural resources – you can see natural selection and survival of the fittest in social and economic terms.

back onto the OPs comments, w/r to the kinds of family you are talking about these offspring will have less opportunity in life and less chance to succeed over a smaller family where attention and opportunity (due to better investment per child) is better. and so begins a vicious cycle.

to any tyne and wear residents i may (or may not) have upset; i managed to get out of there after 30 years (at the 2nd attempt, i might add!)…

What’s that film called about the man who regresses (isn’t that sort of the opposite of evolve) to his primal self using some machine? I think it was Jeff or Beau Bridges….

To add a small point. Evolution is an adaption to an environment. This can happen biologically as has been discussed, or sociologically also. We are all members of an organic social structure and people will respond to it according to their place within it. It’s quite dispiriting to note so many people claiming we’re in trouble because they think the ‘lower orders’ are breeding too much. If you admit they are ‘lower order’ this is only in a sociological sense and not necessarily biologically correlated.

I think a lot of people here are talking about attitudes outlook and education rather than any biological potential.

Anyway, it’s the moneyed elite which are screwing us all over, everyone knows that.

survival of the fittest is the elimination of the old, weak, or naturally smaller animals.

No it isn’t.

Naturally smaller for instance, may be an advantage. It certainly was for our ancestors that lived amongst the dinosaurs. Old and weak…In biological terms once your done breeding, you are useless to the gene pool your effectiveness has already been used, ergo you can die. You can’t, however evolve away from age and weakness (in the form of infirmity). Humans live unnaturally long lives, not because we’ve evolved that ability, but because we’re clever enough to develop medicines to help us. But (as any Doctor will tell you) the human body has not evolved further to make intervention easier.

Altered States – that’s the film 🙂

considering how pink, soft, squishy, tasty with ketchup the human form is, our ability to use our brains and our opposable thumbs is the only thing thats keeping us alive.
humans dont “do” stronger faster bigger i dont think

the opposite of evolution is singlespeeding youre bike

we evolve socially as well as genetically

There’s plenty of examples of things getting ‘simpler’ in response to a new environment- losing eyes in permanently dark environments for example.

The Victorian view of evolution a march towards “better” (where humans are better than cockroaches) persists though.

As I see it:
Survival of the fittest just means individuals in a population best suited to their particular niche/environment will tend to reproduce at the expense of less well-suited individuals, and so the attributes that make them better suited will tend to spread through the population (e.g. Giraffe neck length, no eyes so less energy used, or whatever). What’s best in that context can be anything at all. If this goes on long enough speciation might occur (depending on a few other factors).

The population thing is important, and it’s why things like older/weaker/crippled animals not lasting as long isn’t really what Darwin was getting at. The less well-suited animals (e.g. a giraffe with a shorter neck) might be perfectly healthy, but they’re still not as ‘fit for purpose’ as the ones with longer necks.

The key thing is that ‘best’ when talking about evolution is whatever gets a result in a given environment, and that’s it- not how it stacks up in some moral code or in comparison to other things/animals in different contexts.

It certainly was for our ancestors that lived amongst the dinosaurs

It certainly wasn’t. Humans never lived with dinosaurs. About 60 million years of evolution separates them.

Righty-ho…